PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 15, 2012
Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act of 2012 - Amends the federal criminal code to require the attorney for the government, in a criminal prosecution, to provide to the defendant any information or evidence that may reasonably appear to be favorable to the defendant regarding the determination of guilt, any preliminary matter before the cour, or the sentence to be imposed (covered information): (1) that is within the possession, custody, or control of the prosecution team; or (2) the existence of which is known, or through due diligence would become known, to that attorney.
Directs the government attorney to provide to the defendant any covered information: (1) without delay after arraignment and before the entry of any guilty plea; and (2) as soon as is reasonably practicable upon its becoming known, without regard to whether the defendant has entered or agreed to enter a guilty plea.
Authorizes the court, upon motion of the United States which the court may permit to be filed under seal to protect a witness's identity, to issue an order to protect against immediate disclosure if: (1) the covered information is favorable to the defendant solely because it would provide a basis to impeach the credibility of a potential witness, and (2) the United States establishes a reasonable basis to believe that the identity of the potential witness is not already known to any defendant and disclosure would present a threat to anyone's safety.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permits the court, under specified circumstances, to accept a waiver of this Act by a defendant. Prohibits a defendant from waiving a provision of this Act except in open court.
Requires the court to order an appropriate remedy upon determining that the United States has violated the requirement to disclose or to disclose in a timely manner and provides for payment of the defendant's costs.
People & committees
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1736-1737)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2197 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2197 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2197 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2197 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.